um dude i said "proof" cause you posted vids and labeled them as "proof"
The videos that I linked are proof, I'm not saying its 100% accurate proof but its some kind of evidence. You guys can discern for yourselves if its true proof or a logical fallacy.
what makes you think the equator has the most amount of plants on it? its actually a harsh area where plants don't exactly thrive.. wouldn't you think there are more plants in the northern hemisphere where there is more land? I understand what you are saying with Einsteins equations but you need to remember the earth as a whole is much more complex and as CN pointed out in a balanced state as of now. You wanna talk about theories!? well my theory is our solar system is getting smaller! i mean we already lost Pluto whats next?
I'm not a scientist, I'm a learner. I wish I had all the answers but I don't.
What I am saying is that the equator receives more sunlight then the poles and thusly, there is more energy that can POTENTIALLY be turned into mass, if My theory is correct. But even if there are less plants on land, near the equator; the ocean can still use algae or whatever to do the same thing as plants on land; and convert that energy into mass.
Yes what you are saying has merit, photons however are near massless and are not capable of converting into any other form, unlike neutrons, protons and electrons, which are interchangeable and will always change according to their mass. Neutrinos as you may know are capable of passing right through the earth because of their extremely small size and density. Keep in mind that the earth may also be giving off mass as it expends energy through space, which is a fabric and is ultimately the governor of all space-time.
You seem to know more about subatomic particles then Me. I haven't studied that in a long time.
If I'm using Einstein's equation properly, then I figure that any energy can be converted to mass with the correct catalyst or transducer. BUT you will need an enormous amount of energy to make an infinitesimal amount of mass that may seem like naught.
I also have a theory that you can create any element from copious amounts of energy; you can create gold, silver, platinum or any element. One day that will be a science unto itself- making gold (or whatever) from just energy.
I think maybe you are denying gravity a little in this theory also honestly.......reason I bring up fossil fuels being mostly plants is because the next new deposits buried deep under those new layers of rock soil and other crusty things is all around you right now and came from what is already sloshing about on the surface and from what was spewed from within......which is also what was once on the surface......gravity.....iron has a lot of it.....so the matter in plants comes from earth and the catalyst is the suns radiation.....you make it like the radiation creates matter.....my point is photosynthesis doesn't create new matter......and that the equator is a larger diameter than the poles because of acceleration......ever been to the drag strip and seen the top fuel dragsters light up the big back tires during a burnout??? think of the tires as the equator and the axle as the poles.....the tires dont weigh more when they're spun up, hope that helps.
[youtube]ghs8qoYPSjY[/youtube]
I believe you're right, and I also believe I'm right too. It could be a combination of what you're saying and what I'm saying. They might not be mutually exclusive.
What I'm trying to say is yes, electromagnetic radiation can create matter if you have enough radiation and you know what you're doing.
Really? How many volcanoes? Just ONE super-volcano (there are six, like the one under Yellowstone Park) has the potential to erupt spilling millions of tons of debris across the ENTIRE planet. It will block out the sun for decades, killing much of the plant life, hence animal life, on Earth. There are about 600 active volcanoes on Earth, and an unknown amount of submarine volcanoes. There have been millions of erupting volcanoes since the birth of our planet, it shouldn't be so hard to believe they are the source of our land masses...
Your beliefs are erroneous: look at the specious conspiracy theorist data, then look at the overwhelming expert, peer reviewed data. It's not even close to being in question. You choose beliefs based on feeling, not evidence, so of course you will be wrong most of the time. Learn to evaluate credible data instead of what sounds cool to you...
I see two links you posted. The fact that you post links that you, yourself have not even bothered to view tells us all we need to know about your integrity and credibility, which seems to be zero. That's what I mean about asking others to do your homework for you, "Here guys! Watch this shit and attempt to debunk it, for I cannot be bothered..." How lazy can one be?
Yes, and I'm sure most share my assessment of you...
It is NOT a theory, it is an idea you had based on ignorance. Please familiarize yourself with what a scientific theory is. It is the highest form of knowledge we possess, made up of many laws and facts, that has great predictive power. Your idea is not based on facts or physical laws, and has zero predictive power, so it is NOT a theory. What is the big deal of coming up with new theories or ideas? Just because something is novel doesn't make it valuable or credible. I am not intelligent or educated enough to come up with new theories, do you know how arduous it is to do that? No, of course you don't. You don't even know what goes into the process. Leave it to the adults, George...
Any credible geology source proves you wrong, you just don't know that because the only 'research' you've done is of wacky YT conspiracy videos...
You make it so easy, darling...
You have your peer review, everyone here is telling you the same thing. This is not a debate, it is a child yelling out for attention by spewing false crap, and the adults attempting to educate you (and you shitting all over that) telling you to settle down.
It seems that the rest of us are of average intellect, you are WELL below average...
Yes, YOU simply believe what you like. The proof is there, you will simply not review or acknowledge it...
Ok, you're right Tyler and I'm wrong... maybe or maybe not.
You're a smart guy, believe what you want. I don't need to convince you of anything, you're wonderful the way you are.
(To be honest, I just don't feel like properly answering your questions right now. Maybe later.)
EDIT-Tyler, since you're so much smarter then Me, why don't you understand that I'm just a layman doing My best? Why do you bother to admonish Me with such harsh words? Have I ever used harsh words with you? and don't even say that I called you an "asshole" because I believe I said, "I think you like being an asshole". Why do you bother debasing Me when you know I'm such a dolt? what good will it do? You should treat Me the way you would like to be treated. I try and treat you the way I would like to be treated. Could you talk to Me the same way that you would talk to yourself?
What of the sun's mass? Do you think the mass of the sun grows or shrinks as a result of the nuclear fusion reaction that provides the light which seems to be the source for your theory? That's the theory right, that sunlight = NEW mass?
Correct, I believe the sun is losing weight due to the nuclear reaction going on inside of the sun. So the sun loses a small amount of weight every second and converts it into energy; that's where we get the equation E=MC^2. My theory is the opposite, the energy gets converted back into mass at naught levels.
So when you said "That's the theory right, that sunlight = NEW mass?", I would say yes, thats the theory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Its just a theory from a layman guys, you don't need to beat Me all up about it. I'm not a scientist.
~PEACE~
